Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 79 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Joan Chason ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. and Don L. Harris, Defendants-Appellees.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Joan Chason ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. and Don L. Harris, Defendants-Appellees Anchor | green | “the weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of the case when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.” | 35 |
| 2 | Jernard Griggs v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C. | green | “some circuits have held that district courts must stay a case when all claims are submitted to arbitration, but this circuit allows district courts to dismiss such claims outright.” | 11 |
| 3 | Joan Chason ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. and Don L. Harris, Defendants-Appellees | green | “when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.” | 8 |
| 4 | JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Conegie Ex Rel. Lee | green | “whether any federal statute or policy renders the claims nonarbitrable.” | 6 |
| 5 | Adam Technologies International S.A. De C v. v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc. | green | “although section 3 of the federal arbitration act directs district courts to stay pending arbitration, we are bound by our precedent which states that dismissal is appropriate 'when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.” | 6 |
| 6 | Ope International Lp v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Incorporated | green | “(1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement.” | 5 |
| 7 | Pennzoil Exploration and Production Co. v. Ramco Energy Ltd. | green | “all disputes between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract regardless of the label attached to the dispute” | 4 |
| 8 | Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Bollman | green | “we examine arbitration language in a contract in light of the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, resolving any doubts as to the parties' intentions in favor of arbitration.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.